- within Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
In Law, once a trademark becomes generic it is open to public domain. Being significantly applied in law, it is understood that a generic mark never receives any trademark protection and they are free for everybody to use. This principle has found place in the recent trademark dispute of [Skyline Education Institute (I) Private Ltd v. S.L Vaswani and Anr. Civil Appeal no 1362 of 2005]. Skyline Education Institution in a move against S.L Vaswani and Anr alleged them for breach of Trademark before the Supreme Court of India. Skyline Education Institution, the appellant is a company incorporated under companies Act whose main object is to impart and train in all fields of education. Satilila Charitable society, the respondent No: 1 is registered under the Societies Registration Act whose aim meets with that of Skyline Education Institution. An appeal was filed before the division bench of High Court against order passed by the single judge of High Court who refused to restrain Satilila Charitable Society and S.L.Vaswani from using the term 'Skyline' as a part of their trade name. The division bench expressed its agreement with the learned single judge that the word 'Skyline' is generic and is adoptive. Hence an appeal lies to the Supreme Court.
Skyline Education Institution submitted that Satilila Charitable Society established an institution with the name Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology and the usage of the word 'Skyline' as a prefix in the name of Institution would amount to confusion in the mind of the general public and prospective students. In this respect Skyline Education Institution proceeded with suit for grant of permanent injunction and further prayed for award of damages and to give details of the profits earned by Satilila Charitable Society.
Satilia Charitable Society contented that Skyline Education Institution can't monopolize the word Skyline since it is used worldwide. Further claimed that as per the present law no trademark can be granted in respect of educational services. The court in this regard took the view that Skyline Education Institution cannot establish exclusive rights over a generic word. However, the court concluded partly in favour of Skyline Education Institution stating that Satilila Charitable Society is restricted from introducing similar course to that of Skyline Education Institution and further added that they must include a disclaimer in their advertisement that Skyline Institute of Engineering and Technology is not related to Skyline Education Institution. The court in this regard took note that the division bench independently considered the entire matter and had expressed its agreement with the learned single judge recording that Skyline Education Institution has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of injunction. Satilila Charitable Society further went on to aver that the decision by the learned single judge followed by division bench in directing them to attach a disclaimer was not justified.
The Supreme Court acknowledging the nature of the case noted that the appeal is allowed and Satilila and S.L Vaswani need not publish a disclaimer along with the advertisement of their education institutions thus the modified injunction granted by the single judge is vacated and Skyline Education Institution was ordered to bear the cost of groundless litigation upon S.L Vaswani and Anr.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
